Reconciliation is a Self-Soothing Technique

The concept of reconciliation, is due for a review as societies grapple with their histories of oppression and injustice and try to cling at some semblance of civility. The project of “reconciliation”, the entire premise of it, presents itself as a noble pursuit—an attempt to mend fractured relationships between marginalised communities and those in positions of power.

However, upon closer examination, the framework of reconciliation reveals itself to be a superficial remedy that actually serves as a self-soothing technique for white allies rather than a genuine commitment to rectifying historical and ongoing harms. It is time to critically assess the assumptions inherent in reconciliation efforts and discuss how they often function as mechanisms for discomfort avoidance among those who have yet to confront the full implications of racial inequity.

The Assumptions of Reconciliation

At its core, reconciliation presupposes that a path can be forged through dialogue, acknowledgment, and, at times, symbolic gestures aimed at addressing historical injustices. While dialogue is essential for fostering understanding, the reconciliation narrative distracts from the structural and systemic nature of racism, which cannot be resolved solely through goodwill or mutual apologies (Katz, 2013). Such an approach neglects the realities of power dynamics and economic disparities that continue to perpetuate racial inequality.

Additionally, reconciliation often employs a narrative of “us versus them,” suggesting that disparate groups can simply come together and achieve harmony through conversation; as if it was all just a misunderstanding amongst friends and not a systematic process of genocide and dispossession that has still reverberating social, economic, spiritual and political repercussions. This framing minimises the voices and perspectives, the feelings and impacts, of those who have been marginalised, reducing their lived experiences to mere points of discussion, reflection and forgiveness. As Tuck and Yang (2012) assert, reconciliation can inadvertently erase the complexities of historical injustices, placing undue emphasis on the need for harmonious relationships over substantive justice.

Self-Soothing Mechanism for White Allies

The eager desire to engage in the conversation of “reconciliation” rather than, or even before than anti-racism, functions as a self-soothing technique and not a commitment to genuine justice. This self-soothing behaviour manifests through participation in activities such as social media posting, acknowledging historic wrongs but nor current injustices, or endorsing reconciliation “activities” while actively resisting even the discussion of substantive change or reparations. This all works to create an illusion of moral superiority while failing to confront systemic inequities. Such activities can serve as emotional salves, allowing individuals to feel as though they are contributing to change without necessitating a deep, personal reckoning with their own roles in maintaining systemic inequity (DiAngelo, 2018).

The urge to pursue reconciliation without fully understanding or addressing the realities of racial harm often results in a white-centric narrative that glosses over the very real suffering experienced by marginalized communities. This phenomenon echoes the concept of “performative activism,” wherein actions taken by white allies focus more on personal or social image than the true dismantling of harmful systems (Tuck & Yang, 2012). These behaviors result in a cycle of avoidance where individuals seek to quell their discomfort without committing to the difficult and often painful work of systemic change.

The Consequences of Superficial Reconciliation

Engaging in superficial reconciliation may lead to complacency regarding the pursuit of true justice, reinforcing a status quo that remains detrimental to marginalized communities. By pacifying their discomfort, white allies may unintentionally perpetuate the very systems of oppression they purport to dismantle. As a result, the reconciliation framework can be co-opted to maintain existing power structures, undermining the possibility of transformative change.

For reconciliation efforts to lead to meaningful outcomes, they must be reframed within a broader context that acknowledges the necessity of justice over mere agreement. This includes advocating for systemic reforms that challenge inequities in education, employment, housing, and healthcare—domains where racial disparities persist (Pew Research Center, 2020). Substantive change cannot be achieved through dialogue alone; it necessitates actionable commitments to dismantling racism and addressing the socio-economic structures that perpetuate inequality.

While reconciliation is often positioned as a pathway toward healing and understanding, it risks functioning as a self-soothing or even derailment technique for those who do not wish to fully confront the extent of racial harm and inequity that persists in society.

By critiquing the assumptions underlying reconciliation efforts, we can better understand the need for a more rigorous engagement with justice, one that prioritizes systemic change over the temporary comfort of dialogue. Ultimately, true understanding and healing will only emerge when we move beyond the superficiality of reconciliation and engage deeply in confronting the injustices rooted in history and society.

References

DiAngelo, R. (2018). White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. Beacon Press.

Katz, J. (2013). White Awareness: Handbook for Anti-Racism Training. The Small Press.

Pew Research Center. (2020). The Link Between Race and Economic Inequality. Retrieved from Pew Research Center.

Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). "Decolonization is not a metaphor." Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1-40.

Copy

Regenerate